rIE 554 
. S5 B7 
Copy 1 


PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF DOCKS 
AND RAILWAY TERMINAL 
FACILITIES 


Means the Industrial and Commercial 
Supremacy of the City of Seattle 


Paper Prepared by ROBERT BRIDGES 

SECRETARY OF THE 

PORT COMMISSION OF THE PORT OF SEATTLE 



DISTRIBUTED FROM THE OFFICE OF 

McKenzie, bridges & McFarlane 

439-40 NEW YORK BLOCK 
SEATTLE, WASH. 



















. 









* 




. 

, 

, 

, 















, 

. 


* 

. 

■ L f - 








. 










. 

. 

- 

- 
















- 
















" 2 H S 1 * j * • • 

* 

■ 

■ 



























■ 


























- 


















•- 


■ 

























. - 


































.* 








. 
































































































- 



















. 










■ 


























































* 








PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF DOCKS 
AND RAILWAY TERMINAL 
FACILITIES 

Means the Industrial and Commercial 
Supremacy of the Gity of Seattle 


Paper Prepared by ROBERT BRIDGES 

H 

SECRETARY OF THE 

PORT COMMISSION OF THE PORT OF SEATTLE 



DISTRIBUTED FROM THE OFFICE OF 

McKenzie, bridges & McFarlane 

439-40 NEW YORK BLOCK 
SEATTLE, WASH. 












•r 


i>. of D, 

I OV 15, 0 3 


Paper Prepared for the Use of the Committee of the Commercial 
Club of the City of Seattle* by Robert Bridges* Secretary of the 
Port Commission* Port of Seattle: 


History of Harbor Line Matters in 
the State. 

The greatest struggle that took 
place in the constitutional convention 
of the State of Washington was that 
between the advocates of state con¬ 
trol of all harbor facilities and those 
who believed in private control there¬ 
of. The ablest men in the state were 
arrayed on one side or the other, both 
within and without the bar of the 
convention, and the discussion took 
more time than any other subject 
that came up for consideration. It 
finally resulted in the policy of state 
control being adopted, the provision 
of the fundamental law which was in¬ 
tended to secure that result being 
as follows: 

Art. XV, Sec. 1. The Legislature 
shall provide for the appointment of 
a commission whose duty it shall be 
to locate and establish harbor lines 
in the navigable waters of all har¬ 
bors, estuaries, bays, and inlets of 
this state, wherever such navigable 
waters lie within or in front of any 
corporate limits of any city or within 
one mile thereof upon either side. 
The state shall never give, sell or 
lease to any private person, corpo¬ 
ration or association any rights what¬ 
ever in the waters beyond such har¬ 
bor lines, nor shall any of the area 
lying between any harbor line and 
the line of ordinary high tide, and 
within not less than fifty feet nor 
more than six hundred feet of such 
harbor line (as the commission shall 
determine) be sold or granted by the 
state, nor its right to control the 
same relinquished, but such area 
shall be forever reserved for land¬ 
ings, wharves, streets, and other con¬ 
veniences of navigation and com¬ 
merce. 

Sec. 2. The legislature shall pro¬ 
vide general laws for the leasing of 
the light to build and maintain 
wharvps, docks, and other structures 

—3 


upon the areas mentioned in section 
1 of this article, but no lease shall 
be made for any term longer than 
thirty years, or the legislature may 
provide by general laws for the build¬ 
ing and maintaining upon such 
areas, wharves, docks and other 
structures. 

Sec. 3. Municipal corporations 
shall have the right to extend their 
streets over intervening tide lands 
to and across the area reserved as 
herein provided. 

To emphasize the intent of Art. XV, 
the convention afterwards by Sec. 2, 
of Art. XXVII, provided as follows: 

Sec. 2. All laws now in force in 
the Territory of Washington, which 
are not repugnant to this constitu¬ 
tion, shall remain in force until they 
expire by their own limitation, or are 
altered or repealed by the legisla¬ 
ture: Provided, that this section shall 
not be so construed as to validate any 
act of the legislature of Washington 
territory granting shore or tide lands 
to any person, company, or any muni¬ 
cipal or private corporation. 

State ex rel. Wm .P. Trimble, re¬ 
lator, vs. Robert Bridges, et al. as 
the Board of State Land Commis¬ 
sioners, respondents. 

Section 53, of the act of March 16, 
1897 (Laws 1897, p. 225), from the 
state of the right to erect wharves, 
docks and other structures as pro¬ 
vided in the section, in a designated 
portion of the harbor area in front 
of the City of Seattle. Among other 
provisions in the section it was de¬ 
clared that, 

“After the expiration of one year, 
if the parties who have leased any 
of the said areas, do not commence to 
build wharves, docks, or to make 
such other improvements as provid¬ 
ed in this act, the commission may 
cancel the lease and re-lease the same 
under the provisions of this act.” 

“But the section as amended in 






1899, (Laws 1899, p. 225) contained 
the following provision in lieu of the 
requirement to improve: 

“The lessee of any part of such 
harbor area may at his or its option, 
improve the same in such manner, 
subject to the approval of the board, 
and to such extent as such lessee 
shall elect.” 

“The vital question for determin¬ 
ation is, was the legislature author¬ 
ized to relieve the lessee from the 
obligation to improve the harbor 
area leased by him? 

“If this provision be valid, it con¬ 
tains a contract with the state by 
which the lessee, under the terms of 
the lease provided in the statute, may 
hold a portion of the harbor area for 
a period of thirty years and beyond 
the power of the state to improve or 
to have the same improved. Such 
lease becomes a contract, and by the 
rendition of a merely nominal rental 
the lessee may hold at his pleasure 
the harbor area without improving 
it. This is not in accord with the 
intent and manifest prescription of 
the constitution. 

“The vices of the amended section 
in the act of 1899 is that it vests the 
option and election to improve the 
harbor area in the lessee, a private 
individual or corporation, rather 
than resting it, as vested by the con¬ 
stitution, in the state. The provis¬ 
ions relative to improvements by the 
lessee incorporated in the amend¬ 
atory act of 1899 are therefore void. 

“The writ is denied.” 


Public Ownership of Docks. 

A harbor is essentially public. The 
right to embark and disembark again 
to the land should be as free as the 
people whose property it is. 

It is said by Lord Justice Hale, de 
Portibus Maris: 

“When a port is fixed, both natives 
and foreigners are interested by reas¬ 
on of common commerce, trade and 
intercourse; and they ought to be 
preserved from impediments and 
nuisances that may hinder or annoy 
the access or abode of ships and 

—4 


vessels and seamen, or the unloading 
or reloading of goods.” 

It would not be profitable to go 
into the history of foreign ports to 
trance their origin, whether from 
royal edict, parliamentary grant or 
a free town’s decree. 

In a democratic republic like the 
United States, the harbors are held 
by the state government as a sacred 
public trust, which even the legis¬ 
latures have no right permanently to 
impair. 

In Martin vs. Waddell, 16 Pet. Rep. 
410, the United States Supreme 
Court says: 

“When the revolution took place, 
the people of each state became them¬ 
selves sovereign, and in that char¬ 
acter held the absolute right to all 
the navigable waters, and the soil 
under them, for their own common 
use, subject only to the rights sur¬ 
rendered by the constitution.” 

In the weii known Massachusetts 
case of the commonwealth V. Alger, 
in the opinion of the court, Chief 
Justice Shaw uses the following lan¬ 
guage: 

“Supposing, then, that the common¬ 
wealth does hold all the power which 
exists anywhere to regulate and dis¬ 
pose of the seashores and tide waters 
of all lands under them and all public 
rights connected with them; whether 
this power be traced to the right of 
property or the right of sovereignty 
as its principal source, it must be 
regarded as held in trust for the best 
interest of the public, for commerce 
and navigation, and for all the legiti¬ 
mate and appropriate uses to which 
it may be subservient.” 

This is not a new doctrine, but it 
is well, occasionally, to restate it; 
and it is found reaffirmed by the Su¬ 
preme Court of the United States in 
what is known as the “Lake Front” 
case of Chicago, where, in delivering 
the opinion of the court, Mr. Justice 
Brewer, says: 

“The position advanced by the rail¬ 
road company in support of its c^aim 
to the ownership of the submerged 
lands and the right to the erection 
of wharves, piers and docks at its 









pleasure or for its business in the 
harbor of Chicago, would place every 
harbor in the country at the mercy 
of a majority of the legislature of the 
state in which the harbor is situated. 
We cannot, it is true, cite any author¬ 
ity where a grant of this kind has 
been held invalid, for we believe no 
instances exist where the harbor of 
a great city and its commerce have 
been allowed to pass into the control 
of any private corporation. But the 
decisions are numerous which declare 
that such property is held by the 
state, by virtue of its sovereignity, 
in trust for the public. 

“The ownership of the navigable 
waters of the harbor and the lands 
under them is subject of public con¬ 
cern to the whole people of the state. 
The trust with which they are held, 
1 therefore, is governmental, and can- 
| not be alienated except in those in¬ 
stances mentioned of parcels used in 
I the improvement of the interest thus 
\held, or when parcels can be dis¬ 
posed of without detriment to the 
public interest in the lands and 
Waters remaining. This follows nec¬ 
essarily from the public character of 
tie property, being held by the whdie 
people for purposes in which me 
wXole people are interested.” 

The opinions here stated are cited 
as\an indication of proper grounds 
upcp which may be based a propo¬ 
sition on behalf of public ownership 
andlcontrol of the wharves of a great 
port! and they seem to be laid in the 
foundations of natural right, of 
public convenience and in principles 

WhVrves are the means whereby 
the public on land can transfer them¬ 
selves and their goods to the water, 
and vpe versa—just as turnpikes, 
streets and highways are the means 
for enlbling free and easy transpor¬ 
tation Ivholly on land. No impedi¬ 
ments br barriers beyond the limit 
of publi; control should be permitted 
to obstluct freedom of communi¬ 
cation tetween land and water. The 
rivers a^d seas are the highways of 
water-bone freight and passengers, 


and the right of landing and embark¬ 
ing ought to suffer no more or greater 
legal obstruction than the right of 
traversing the highway on sea or 
land. It becomes the duty of the 
public, then, to preserve that right 
for present and future use. 

In order to reap the fullest enjoy¬ 
ment of this right, facilities and con¬ 
veniences must be supplied for the 
required use. These necessarily be¬ 
come a public charge, owing to the 
cost of construction and mainte¬ 
nance, in consequence of which a 
toll must be paid by the users. This 
toll is an unavoidable obstruction to 
free transference over a wharf which 
is built for increased accommodation 
and for lessening the cost of handling 
But it is obvious that the smaller the 
toll the less will be the obstruction. 

Aside, however, from questions ot 
natural right and justice, there are 
other business and practical con¬ 
siderations which appear as satis¬ 
factory reasons as given in the com¬ 
munications of our consuls from for¬ 
eign ports. The following are con- 
densecLffom certain consuler reports: 

AUCKLAND—Public ownership 
M anages matters solely for the benefit 
of the public. It does not seek to 
make profit. All accumulations of 
money from every source are returned 
to those who paid it, in the shape of 
increased accommodation and appli¬ 
ances for the benefit of trade. Under 
public ownership charges are levied 
upon all classes of goods, and equally 
upon all individuals. Favoring of 
particular lines of trade is avoided. 
Public ownership looks for the great¬ 
est return it can get. 

COPENHAGEN—Charges at public 
wharves are generally less than at 
private wharves. 

GLASGOW—Public ownership of 
docks gives cheaper rates and dues, 
and better facilities for the purposes 
of commerce. 

H A M B U R G—Public ownership 
gives lower profits to owners than, 
private parties would be contented 
with. 

LIVERPOOL—The commercial ad- 


5 — 





vantages of public control would be 
that the docks and harbor are worked 
entirely for the benefit of the traders 
and those using and frequenting the 
port; and that all surplus revenue, 
after payment of interest on borrowed 
capital, should either go toward re¬ 
ducing the debt, or capital of the 
company, or should be expended in 
extension of the dock system, or in 
providing new facilities and improving 
those already existing at the port. 

MELBOURNE—Under public own¬ 
ership steps can be taken to meet the 
requirements of the port in a better 
manner than by private ownership. 
It supplies the necessary accommo¬ 
dation for shipping at a more reason¬ 
able charge. 

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE— Pub¬ 
lic ownership has no motive other 
than to extend and benefit the trade 
of the port. 

QUEBEC—Except for the public 
ownership none of the improvements 
now existing would have been made. 

ROTTERDAM—A great and suc¬ 
cessful sea-port can be built up only 
by united effort. The docks, quays 
and necessary mechanical appliances 
are part and parcel of the port and 
harbor. How the harmony, order and 
method so essential to the develop¬ 
ment and successful administration 
of vast and varied interests can be 
secured unlesss the sea-port and its 
harbor service in their entirety be 
subjected to the direction of one cen¬ 
tral controlling power, is, indeed, 
difficult to understand. 

Most fortunately, the United States 
Commissioner of Corporations, Mr. 
Herbert Knox Smith, of the Depart¬ 
ment of Commerce and Labor, has 
made an exhaustive study of trans¬ 
portation by water in the United 
States, in connection with which he 
has issued three substantial volumes, 
the last (Part III, Water Terminals) 
having been put forth in 1910 and 
comprises about 400 pages of most 
interesting and enlightening data on 
the subject. 

Commissioner Smith’s views of 
what a water terminal should con¬ 
sist of. He says: 

—6 


“In addition to harbor organization, 
there are four prime factors in a 
good water terminal: (1) Adequate 
wharves; (2) warehouse space; (3) 
trans-shipping machinery; and (4) 
belt-line railway connection between 
general water traffic, the adjacent 
railroads, and, if possible, the local 
industries. (The depth of water is a 
matter of channels, not terminals). 
Furthermore, these vital factors 
should not be under adverse or exclu¬ 
sive control, especially the belt rail¬ 
way, which should be the public ser¬ 
vant of the whole port. It is a matter 
of more than passing attention that 
the three best managed ports on this 
continent are the three that are 
managed, not by the municipalities 
themselves, but by the state. 
These ports are the most up-to-date 
in their equipment, and the charac¬ 
ter of the construction of both wharves 
and sheds, as well as of their equip¬ 
ment, leaves little to be desired.” 

On this point, Commissioner Smith 
says: 

“Two ports only, New Orleans and 
San Francisco, are noteworthy for 
their high degree of public owner¬ 
ship, control, efficiency, and equ:'p- 
ment. At New Orleans the active 
waterfront is admirably equipped and 
controlled by a State Board; most 
of the wharves and sheds are open 
for general traffic, and a municipal 
board operates ten miles of belt-line 
railway giving co-ordination betveen 
the waterway local industries, and 
trunk-line railroads. At San Fran¬ 
cisco there is an excellent syst 3 m of 
wharves under state control kept 
open for general traffic. The water 
terminal situation in these twc cities 
is by far the best in the country.” 

Mr. George C. Sikes, an exvert on 
harbors and their developmeit, em¬ 
ployed by the Chicago Harb<r Com¬ 
mission to make an investigaion and 
administration, in his valuabb report 
made in the fall of 1909 says in part, 
regarding Montreal, which fc owned 
by the Dominion government and ad¬ 
ministered by a Dominion board of 
three commissioners: 






“The Harbor commissioners control 
the entire waterfront of the city and 
manage it on the basis of a public 
monopoly. Within the last few years 
very extensive improvements have 
been made and more are planned for 
the near future. The Harbor com¬ 
missioners own and operate a belt 
railroad, the tracks of which are lo¬ 
cated on the property they control 
so (that switch engines may be oper¬ 
ated at any time of the day or night. 
Ini some places, notably in Boston, 
Pliladelphia and Baltimore, the 
svitching of cars, in parts of the 
hirbor at least, is prohibited ex¬ 
cept at night. The facilities for the 
imerchange of commodities between 
tie railroad and the boat line are 
emecially good in Montreal. The har- 
bQ* commissioners own grain eleva- 
tots which recently have been equip- 
peti with conveyor systems that make 
it possible for the boat to take on 
grin at the berth to which it goes to 
unpad its cargo.” 

[r. Sikes most highly commends 
theadministrtration of the harbor of 
Mojtreal, and adds that, “In addition 
to Its needs, the dock system of 
Motreal is one of the best on the 
conjnent. It is so, largely because 
the Idevelopment is on a basis of 
unitl the harbor commissioners be¬ 
ing tie sole owners of dock facilities 
in tfe port.” 

Hetauotes statements by the com- 
missihers, resulting in part, from 
their \tudy of harbor administration 
in Eubje, in the light of their own 
experipce at Montreal: They advo¬ 
cate: 

Own^slip and control of the en¬ 
tire habor area. No complete de¬ 
veloping can take place without 
unity omiirpose and concentration of 
authority The value of complete 
ownersbp and non-alienation of any 
territoryoi rights are inestimable. 
The exiteice of rights, franchises 
and privWes in the hands of indi¬ 
viduals lay hamper business and en¬ 
danger o\ liscourage further exten¬ 
sion. 


The Evil of Definite Term Leases. 

The greatest objection to private 
ownership of dock facilities is that 
the owners may use their control to 
suppress competition and promote mo¬ 
nopoly. A study of the New York 
situation indicates that public owner¬ 
ship under the system of long term 
leases may be productive of the same 
evil, but to a lesser degree. Private 
ownership, being perpetual, would 
tend to make the abuses perpetual. 
But under public ownership, and with 
the leasing system in use in New 
York City, the leases will expire in 
twenty and thirty years at the out¬ 
side and thus enable the public in the 
course of time to regain control. If 
all leases to piers in the harbor of 
New York were subject to revocation 
at any time, as is the policy in New 
Orleans, San Francisco, Montreal, 
Liverpool, Glasgow and many other 
European ports, the evils I have 
pointed out in the New York situation 
would not develop, or if they did, 
could be easily remedied. 

The only excuses offered in New 
York for leases of twenty years’ or 
thirty years’ duration is that the 
lessee is usually required to build a 
shed upon the pier, and that as the 
shed, at the end of the lease, becomes 
the property of the city, the lessee 
must have a sufficient guaranteed 
time to insure his getting his value 
out of the shed. There are two ways 
of meeting this objection. Either the 
city should build the shed as well as 
the dock in the first instance, or the 
city in reserving the right to terminate 
the lease should provide for reason¬ 
able payment on account of the shed 
in case of revocation. 

The Bush Terminal Company in 
New York makes no leases for longer 
than ten years. It is urged by officers 
of this company that ten years is 
about as long as conditions can be 
foreseen with any degree of accuracy. 

It is impossible to avoid the con¬ 
clusion that influence, political and 
otherwise, has been a factor in the 
leasing policy of the New York Dock 
Department. Moreover, this influence 


- 7 — 









has been exerted at times in a man¬ 
ner detrimental to the interests of 
shipping and of the public. 

The most conspicuous instance is 
afforded by the ice trust scandals of 
the Van Wyck administration. It 
was largely through the favoritism of 
the dock department that the so- 
called ice trust was enabled to get 
such a strong hold upon the situation 
at that time. Many instances can be 
cited of politicians securing leases to 
pier space devoted to dump uses for 
less than market value of the space. 
If such leases, instead of being definite 
term contracts for fixed periods of 
considerable length, were revocable 
at will, any serious abuses that might 
develop could be easily remedied. 

The history of those older states 
which have large commercial interests 
is full of the evidence of loose, negli¬ 
gent or wilfully corrupt management 
of their properties upon the water¬ 
front of their various harbors. The 
state and city of New York, for ex¬ 
ample, have been striving for years 
in the courts, by means of condemna¬ 
tion proceedings and otherwise, at 
vast expense, to recover their control 
of the water-front of that city, in order 
that it may be properly maintained 
and improved for the public benefit. 
In the year 1810, the city granted to 
John Jacob Astor certain water lots 
in the lower part of the city of New 
York, aggregating 425 feet and 4 1-4 
inches along the water front at a 
yearly rental of $356.91. In the year 
1892, his heirs were paid, after a long 
and expensive course of litigation, 
the sum of $520,709.49, in order to 
secure their relinquishment of the 
claim they held to wharfage rights 
upon this property. 


San Francisco. 

Report of Harbor Line Commission. 
State of Washington. 1893. 

From 1850 to 1863, wharves and 
piers were built by private parties 
upon limited franchises granted by 
the city and county of San Francisco, 
which power to grant was held under 
state laws by the board of county 
supervisors. From this system arose 

—8 


various abuses and much mismanage¬ 
ment, and as these franchises expired 
they were not renewed, and the state 
assumed control of these wharves and 
piers by act of the legislature of April 
24, 1863. This act created a state 
board of harbor commissioners and 
defined their powers and jurisdiction. 
The board was organized the same 
year and assumed charge over the 
water front and all structures thereon. 
It required several years of litigation 
to regain all. Several long leases 
did not expire for many years. 

Section 2527—Requisites of Valid 
Contracts. Laws governing Board of 
State Harbor Commissioners. 

No contract or obligation enteied 
into by the Harbor Commissioners, 
which creates a liability or author¬ 
izes the payment of money, shall be 
valid or binding force unless sigied 
by all three of the Commissiomrs, 
and countersigned by the secretary 
of the board, nor shall any contact, 
involving the payment of money, be 
made by the said Commissioiers 
unless the amount then to the 
credit of the Harbor improverent 
fund, together with the revenue 3Sti- 
mated to accrue up to the time o the 
maturity of such contract, over and 
above the current expenses o 1 the 
Commission, be sufficient to mee the 
payments to become due theeon; 
provided, such estimate of reenue 
shall be limited, as to time, to fteen 
(15) years. Where the work to be 
done is the construction of . new 
wharf, bulkhead, or breakwaitr and 
its appurtenances, the boaii may 
lease said wharf, bulkhead, c ii break¬ 
water and its appurtenance for a 
period not to exceed fifteen yars, and 
for an amount not to exceed he cost 
of constructing said work, he rents 
therefrom to be applied, iiytaole or 
in part, in payment for tp cost of 
such construction, and Sad Board 
may provide in the contra t for the 
same that the rents therefom shall 
be so applied, or the won be paid 
for, in whole or in partj’om such 
rents and revenues. 

Sec. 2. All leases her/nder shall 
be made upon competithibids after 







such public advertisement as the Com¬ 
mission shall deem sufficient, inviting 
proposals or bids therefor, and shall 
he awarded to the person who will 
pay the amount required to construct 
such improvements, and execute and 
take a lease thereof for the shortest 
period of such time. (Statutes 1903, 
P. 270; in effect March 20, 1903; 
Cal. Rep. Cit. 54, 292; 81, 23; 111, 583. 

Following is a copy of a lease 
made and entered into by the Harbor 
Commission of San Francisco: 

(Copy.) 

This indenture, made this 4th day 
of August, in the year of our Lord, 
One Thousand Nine Hundred and 
Ten, by and between W. V. Stafford, 
W. E. Dennison and P. S. Teller, as 
and constituting the Board of State 
Harbor Commissioners of the State 
of California, parties of the first part, 
hereinafter called lessors, and West¬ 
ern Pacific Railway Company, a cor¬ 
poration, organized and existing un¬ 
der and by virtue of the laws of the 
State of California, and having its 
principal place of business in the City 
and County of San Francisco, State 
aforesaid, party of the second part, 
hereinafter called lessee; 

WITNESSETH, That said parties 
of the first part do hereby lease to 
said lessee and said lessee does here¬ 
by accept a lease of the new wharf, 
known as Pier No.' 34, situated on 
the water front of the City and Coun¬ 
ty of San Francisco, the same being- 
642 feet 10 17-32 incnes in length and 
130 feet in width, which wharf was 
erected and constructed in accord¬ 
ance with a contract entered into on 
the 18th day of March, 1909, by and 
between the said lessors and Asso¬ 
ciated Contracting Company, a corpo¬ 
ration, in accordance with the plans 
and specifications attached to said 
contract, (which contract was as¬ 
signed in writing on September 16, 
1909, to said lessee) for a term of 
One Hundred and Eighty (180) 
months from and after said 4th day 
of August, 1910, for a rental sum of 
One Hundred and Sixty-Seven Thou¬ 
sand Seven Hundred and Thirty 
($167,730) Dollars, payable in ad¬ 


vance, the receipt whereof is hereby 
acknowledged, it being understood 
and agreed that said rental sum above 
specified is and shall be exclusive 
of dockage and tolls. 

It is further understood and agreed 
that said lessee shall, during the 
term of this lease, keep and main¬ 
tain said wharf in repair at said les¬ 
see’s sole expense; and that said les¬ 
see shall, at the termination of this 
lease, turn said structure back to 
said lessors in as good order and con¬ 
dition as when received, reasonable 
use and wear and tear thereof except¬ 
ed. 

It is further understood and agreed 
that said lessors shall have the right 
at any time during the term of this 
lease to annul and cancel the same 
by paying back to said lessee an 
amount in such proportion to the en¬ 
tire rental sum as the unexpired 
term of said lease bears to the whole 
thereof. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said 
lessors have hereunto set their hands 
and caused their official seal to be at¬ 
tached hereto and said lessee has 
caused this instrument to be execut¬ 
ed and its seal attached by its offi¬ 
cers thereunto duly authorized, in 
duplicate, the day and year first 
written above. 

W. V. STAFFORD, 
W. E. DENNISON, 

P. S. TELLER, 

Board of State Harbor 
Commissioners. 

ATTEST: 

LEE V. MERLE, JR., 

Secretary. 

WESTERN PACIFIC RAILWAY 

COMPANY, 

A Corporation, of San Francisco, Cal. 


STATE OF NEW YORK. 

Barge Canal Terminal Commission. 
1911. 

VOLUME I. 

State Ownership, Control and Ad¬ 
ministration of Canal Terminals 
Advocated. 

Elsewhere in the State we know of 
no city or town where there has been 
even a semblance of policy or system 








adopted with regard to the improve¬ 
ment or development of its water¬ 
front, but, on the contrary, these mu¬ 
nicipalities have permitted private— 
chiefly railroad—interests to acquire 
such of the choicest waterfront prop¬ 
erty as the latter desired, apparently 
without let or hindrance and much 
to the embarrassment of water car¬ 
riers of an independent character, and 
in no sense helpful to the promotion 
of canal borne commerce. It is the 
belief of this Commission that there 
should be legislative action that 
would stimulate the Giilerent cities 
and towns of the sate to adopt some 
systematic, progressive and useful de¬ 
velopment of its waterfront of a char¬ 
acter that shall have the effect of 
giving the fullest possible impetus to 
water borne, and thus cheaper, trans¬ 
portation. 

If we have not already convinced 
your honorable body that we regard 
terminals for the use of canal boats 
as an essential and vital instrumen¬ 
tality for the efficient and economi¬ 
cal promotion of canal commerce, 
then we have utterly failed of our 
purpose. We cannot too strongly, nor 
too emphatically, express ourselves 
to that effect. . So necessary, and so 
vital, to the proper use of the canals 
do we regard terminals, frequently 
and conveniently located, well built 
and thoroughly equipped, that we 
recommend that the State shall build, 
own, control and administer such ter¬ 
minals, wherever located within the 
State, as are deemed necessary for 
the use of boats within the State, 
as are deemed necssary for the use 
of boats carrying freight upon the 
canals of this State, under such rules 
and regulations as it may establish. 
So vital to the preservation and pro¬ 
motion of canal transportation do we 
regard terminals, that it is our hope 
that at the next general submission 
of amendments to the Constitution for 
the approval of the people, there shall 
he also submitted an amendment to 
the effect that the terminals for the 
use of canal boats shall not be sold, 
leased or otherwise disposed of, but 
that they shall remain the property 


and under the control of the State 
forever. 

The Commission is also of the opin¬ 
ion that the plans and specifications 
for the building of such terminal 
structures, and the proper equipment 
of same, should be prepared by the 
State Engineer and Surveyor, subject 
to the approval of the Canal Board, 
that their erection be under the su¬ 
pervision of that officer. 

Since the submission of the bond 
issue to the people of King County, 
communications have been received 
from port authorities from various 
parts of the country. The following 
is taken from a communication re¬ 
ceived from the board, of commission¬ 
ers of the Port of New Orleans: 

Your favor of the 9th inst., ad¬ 
dressed to Mr. Dumser, Secretary of 
the Board of Commissioners of the 
Port of New Orleans, and bulletin re¬ 
garding the Port of Seattle Commis¬ 
sion, have been received. In the opin¬ 
ion of the Port Commissioners of this 
city, founded on an experience of 
sixteen years, it would be suicidal to 
lose control of your docks to private 
parties, in any shape, manner or 
form. It has been proven by experi¬ 
ence of others than ourselves, that 
the greatest benefits accrue to a port 
owning and controlling its own docks. 
In this way the docks are managed 
for the benefit of all, giving equal fa¬ 
cilities to those to whom their use is 
necessary and special privileges to 
none. The docks in this city are pub¬ 
licly owned, as is also the Belt Rail¬ 
road. Under the management of the 
Port Commission, revenues have 
nearly doubled, while the charges 
have been reduced one-half. These 
docks are open to the world at the 
same price. No interest or steamship 
company has any special rights to 
any dock, as these are under the ab¬ 
solute control of the commissioners, 
who can place any vessel that they 
desire at them. 

This Commission issued $3,500,000 
in bonds, paying five per cent inter¬ 
est, out of the proceeds of which 
they constructed the docks as they 
stand today, and which are an asset 
10 





amounting to $4,250,000 and for use 
of which they collect a revenue out of 
which they pay the interest on the 
bonds, the operating expenses, and 
have a surplus. It can be easily fig¬ 
ured that in forty-two years, out of 
the revenues, they will not only have 
collected enough to pay the bonds, 
principal and interest, but have suf¬ 
ficient to rebuild the docks and leave 
a handsome surplus. Under the plan 
such as you indicate, no such results 
could be obtained. Many other strong 
and convincing arguments could be 
adduced to prove thre is no compar¬ 
ison between the conditions which ex¬ 
ist in a publicly owned property and 
administered for the public good, and 
one controlled by private interest. 

If the Port Commission of the Port 
of Seattle was to enter into such a 
lease as was contemplated by the so- 
called Gentlemen’s Agreement, of 
Ayres et al., it would be seen that it 
would be contrary to the advise giiven 
by those ports that have learned by 
experience the vice of long time 
leases, and also from the board of 
State Harbor Commissions, San Fran¬ 
cisco, California. 

As regards leases of publicly owned 
docks and wharves. All wharves and 
piers on the San Francisco side of 
the bay are owned by the State and 
operated for the people by the State 
Board of Harbor Commissioners. 

In most instances the State con¬ 
structs the wharves and assigns them 
on a month to month tenancy to the 
various shipping firms. 

At the present time a charge of 45c 
per linear foot is collected dockage, 
wharfage and toll charges. For in¬ 
stance: The Kosmos Line has as¬ 

signed to it the entire north side of 
Pier 19, Union St. Wharf No. 2. This 
wharf is 600 feet long and for the use 
of it this company pays $270.00 per 
month, in addition to which we col¬ 
lect the dockage, wharfage and toll 
charges. 

The assignment in this manner of 
a pier to a steamship company as¬ 
sures them of docking space for their 
vessels at any time they may touch 
at this point. 


In every instance the operation of 
the local waterfront is directly under 
the jurisdiction of this Board. 

As San Francisco is so situated that 
upon the completion and opening of 
the Panama Canal it will become in 
fact our principal rival and competi¬ 
tor, it would seem at least to be the 
part of wisdom in the interest of the 
people of King Couny in the up-build¬ 
ing of the Commerce of this port to 
adopt as near as practicable the pol¬ 
icy of said Port of San Francisco, 
which years of experience on their 
part has brought them to a state of 
efficiency, dispatch, and economy, to 
a position where they are referred to 
in connection with New Orleans, as 
being the most highly efficient and 
noteworthy harbor in the United 
States. 

(COPY) 

CALVIN TOMPKINS, 

Commissioner. 

B. F. CRESSON, JR., 

First Deputy Commissioner. 
WILLIAM J. BARNEY, 

Second Deputy Commissioner. 
MATTHEW J. HARRINGTON, 
Secretary. 

FRANCIS J. RYAN, 

Assistant Secretary. 


DEPARTMENT OF DOCKS AND 
FERRIES, 

CITY OF NEW YORK , 

Pier “A” North River. 

New York, April 11th, 1912, 

Brig.-Gen. H. M. Chittenden, 

United States Army (Retired), 

124 Fifteenth Avenue N., 

Seattle, Washington. 

My dear General: 

I was complimented to receive your 
personal letter of April 2nd and to 
learn that I have been of some ser¬ 
vice to you in the great responsibil¬ 
ities which you have undertaken. Ex¬ 
ploiting speculators crowd about 
such opportunities just as flies do 
around sugar, and the community is 
fortunate which can avoid having its 
plans spoiled by the disrupting influ¬ 
ence of private speculation. 

There is no competition so sharp as 
that which exists between the great 


— 11 — 








seaports of the world, and from what 
I know of local conditions on the Pa¬ 
cific Coast, I think it is important 
that each one of these ports should 
avoid any entangling alliance which 
will limit this competitive efhcency 
as it develops. Ihave no hesitancy 
in saying that if the public support 
of the community is sufficiently alert, 
the best method of procedure is to 
undertake the physical planning and 
administration of the port as a public 
function. Montreal has done this 
with most satisfactory results, and 
European seaports have done like¬ 
wise. 

It would seem to me that your 
problem is not so complicated but 
what this kind of treatment would be 
effective at Seattle. Even if mistakes 
are made, and the utmost limit of 
economy is not always attained, nev¬ 
ertheless, control is assured by this 
method as it can be in any other way. 
I also think that public administra¬ 
tion is in accord with the trend of 
public opinion, and what may seem 
advanced ideas will appear to be very 
moderate within a short time. The 
main consideration always to keep in 
mind is the necessity for public con¬ 
trol to provide for unity of adminis¬ 
tration and physical planning. All of 
the features of port administration 
should be co-ordinated, and this can¬ 
not be brought about in the simplest 
and most satisfactory way, unless 
public control is absolute. 

I shall send you within a few days 
a report on the relations of New Jer¬ 
sey to New York within the port dis¬ 
trict, which, I think, you will find of 
interest. Our problem is a peculiarly 
difficult one here on account of its 
magnitude, complexity, rivalries of 
private interests and the fact that the 
port lies in two states; still we are 
making headway. 

I enclose copy of a recent report on 
a plan for South Brooklyn adminis¬ 
tration, which is novel and which 
may be suggestive. 

It is possible I may be able to visit 
you in Seattle some time this year. I 
am looking forward to the possibility 


of this trip with a great deal of pleas¬ 
ure. Sincerely yours, 

(Signed) CALVIN TOMPKINS. 


(COPY) 

New Orleans, April 8th, 1912. 
Port Commission of Seattle, 

Seattle, Washington. 

Gentlemen: 

While on a visit to Seattle last 
September, I had the pleasure of 
meeting your Commission, and con¬ 
ferring with them on the subject of 
the Port Terminals of Seattle, and 
was impressed with the possibilities 
of your city. 

I noticed recently in the press 
that Seattle has voted a bond issue 
for the development of its water front 
terminal facilities. It was also stat¬ 
ed “That it was the present thought 
of the Port Commission that an invi- 
taion is exended to those interested to 
enter into negotiations with the Port 
Commission for a lease of the pro¬ 
posed Harbor Island improvements, 
and that the present thought of the 
Commission is to invite co-operation 
of private capital in the development 
of the project. The Port Commission to 
acquire the bulk of the land needed 
and to erect thereon the necessary 
piers and sheds. These structures 
and the additional lands acquired by 
the Commission will be leased on 
equitable terms to the co-operating 
company which will be expected to 
add to such structures from its own 
funds as may be necessary to com¬ 
plete the developments on a compre¬ 
hensive basis. The investment of 
private funds to be not less than half 
of the Port District, etc., etc., and 
that correspondence is invited look¬ 
ing to arrangement along the lines 
above suggested. 

Prompted by my interest in the fu¬ 
ture of Seattle, and all other ports of 
the Pacific Coast, as the method of 
their management will affect not only 
the Pacific Coast, but also the entire 
nation, I am constrained to write 
you this letter. 

Seattle has magnificent possibili¬ 
ties as a Port, and a great future as 


the population of the West increases 
— 12 — 







and the trade of China, Japan and the 
far East continues to expand. In 
this connection it is interesting to 
note the growth of tne commerce of 
the United States, for instance; the 
total foreign commerce of imports 
and exports in 1880 was about fifteen 
hundred millions of dollars; in 1900 
about twenty-two hundred and fifty 
millions of dollars, and in 1910 thirty- 
three hundred millions of dollars. I 
would call attention to the growth in 
the last ten years as compared with 
the previous twenty years. With the 
immense development that is going 
on in the United States, the need of 
port terminals becomes more intense 
and thus the terminals become more 
valuable and of extreme necessity. 
Unfortunately almost every seaport 
in the United States has lost control 
of its water fronts. I am pleased to 
state that New Orleans is one of the 
very few ports that owns and operates 
its own terminals. Some of the large 
cities are making an effort to buy 
back what they have lost, but the im¬ 
mense cost to do so makes it almost 
prohibitive. 

The city of New Orleans has had 
bitter experience in disposing of 
some of its public utilities. It sold 
out its water works system and grant¬ 
ed to a corporation an exclusive mon¬ 
opoly to supply water for a period of 
fifty years. It granted a • franchise 
to a company to put in the sewerage 
for the city. Fortunately for the peo¬ 
ple, New Orleans was able to termi¬ 
nate these arrangements, and our 
city now has a magnificent water 
works and sewerage system owned 
and operated by it. The city many 
years ago granted the right to a rail¬ 
road company to lay a track along 
the river front, but as the terms of the 
contract were not complied with, the 
ciy recovered the space. Various 
propositions have been made in the 
past to permit railroads to get addi¬ 
tional tracks on the river front, but 
by public agitation they were defeat¬ 
ed for the city’s good. 

New Orleans some years ago leased 
its wharves on the river front and the 
results were very unsatisfactory. 


After a long agitation against the 
lease it was not renewed, but a Port 
Commission was organized, which 
took over the wharves and erected 
the miles of sheds and docks which 
have become famous. Delegations 
from many cities visit New Orleans 
to inspect the dock and the belt rail¬ 
road facilities. 

The dock rates are much lower 
than when the docks were under 
lease. The corporations that lease 
desire to make as much as possible 
from the lease, and will put as little 
as possible back into the property. 

Contracts can be drawn to contain 
all possible safeguards. The enforce¬ 
ment of the terms depends largely 
on public officials, the membership of 
such boards who are frequently dis¬ 
placed to make room for others. It is 
quite possible that in future years 
the lessees may have political influence 
to designate the officials who are 
charged withe the enforcement of the 
terms of the lease. The safest plan 
is to take no chances whatsoever, and 
the way to do this is for the people 
never to lose control, ownership and 
operation of their public utilities. 
Between the choice of owning and 
operating, a corporation would natur¬ 
ally prefer the latter, as the city 
puts up the money to acquire the 
utility, while the lessees operate it. 
A city owning and operating its 
docks, warehouses and railroad ter¬ 
minals can prevent discrimination 
against the port, invite new business, 
and compel railroad and steamship 
lines to look after the city’s interest, 
otherwise they will be deprived of 
the facilities. 

There is a probability that when 
the people surrender control of their 
docks, warehouses and belt railroad 
through a lease or any other form, 
they will lose interest in, and become 

indifferent to their own property. 

Where the people exclusively own 
and operate, they will have a pride 
of ownership, which brings better re¬ 
sults flowing from the utilities. Then 
again where the people lose control 
a proposition may be made at 

some future time for the city 


— 13 — 







to dispose of the terminals, or 
revise the terms of the lease 
or contract. Public sentiment is 
so uncertain, and we are all aware 
how a few men can skilfully organize 
and work up public sentiment to 
favor and carry through almost any¬ 
thing. 

The City of New Orleans, through 
the Port Commission, exclusively 
owns and operates the wharves and 
docks, while the public belt railroad 
is owned and operated exclusively by 
the City of New Orleans through a 
belt commission. I have referred 
in this letter to the possibility of 
a city losing valuable public utili¬ 
ties; this did occur several years 
ago, and New Orleans almost lost its 
belt railroad. Public sentiment was 
worked up to the necessity of bring¬ 
ing in new railroads, and that the 
railroads would go elsewhere, etc. 
The agitation was kept up continu¬ 
ously and finally the city council 
passed an ordinance permitting 
a railroad to operate their trains 
over the public belt railroad, provided 
such would join in prorating the cost 
of extending the tracks. All such 
railroads were to pay the City of New 
Orleans for the use of the tracks on 
a wheelage basis. Fortunately the 
Port Commission instituted legal pro¬ 
ceedings to have the ordinance an¬ 
nulled, on the basis that they con¬ 
trolled the management of the river 
front, and had given the City of New 
Orleans the right to construct and 
operate a public belt railroad, but 
only so long as the said railroad was 
operated and controlled by a public 
commission and that its management 
and control should be separate and 
distinct from that of any railroad 
entering New Orleans. The court 
sustained these contentions, other 
wise the City of New Orleans would 
have lost control of its public belt 
railroad. With this experience New 
Orleans almost losing its public 
belt railroad, and to prevent further 
attacks by promotors and railroads, 
and further reasons; the belt railroad 
system of New Orleans was made a 
constitutional amendment of this 


state. I refer you to Act No. 179 of 
the legislature of 1908, and would ask 
you to note the safeguard contained 
therein. 

Nothwithstanding these stringent 
provisions, I am always uneasy that 
some effort will be made by some 
corporation or promoter to get poses- 
sion of the public belt railroad. I 
consider it the most valuable asset 
of the City of New Orleans, and there¬ 
fore a very rich prize to strive for. It 
has been in operation for about three 
years, and its business has grown 
from handling the first year 82,000 
loaded and empty cars, to 144,000 
loaded and empty cars the third 
year. 

The Hon. Herbert Knox Smith, 
Commissioner of Corporations, U. S. 
Department of Commerce and Labor, 
on Water Terminals, Part 3, submit¬ 
ted September 26, 1910, states, re¬ 
garding New Orleans’ Public Belt 
Railroad, the following: “The belt 
railroad already completed and its 
extensions already provided for, is 
the best example in the country of 
a practical co-ordination of rail, in¬ 
dustrial and water business for the 
entire community.” Mr. Smith’s re¬ 
port gives the terminal condition of 
all the ports in the United States. 

A corporation that leases usually 
issues an excessive amount of bonds 
and stock, on which interest and 
dividends are to be paid. Commerce 
must bear the charges which will 
thus be higher than if the city owns 
and operates, in which case only the 
cost of maintenance and operation 
have to be provided for. Commerce 
seeks the line of least resistance, and 
Seattle will lose business if it costs 
more through the leasing of the 
docks, warehouses and belt railroad, 
notwithstanding the large bond is¬ 
sue voted by the people. The public 
belt railroad owned and operated by 
the City of New Orleans over a zone 
of more than ten miles charges two 
dollars per car for placing a loaded 
car and returning the empty, which 
is believed to be the lowest terminal 
charge in the United States. Busi- 


14 — 






ness is thus attracted, due to the 
low dock and belt railroad charges. 

Another reason why a city should 
own and operate its dock and belt 
railroad, is that all the railroads, in¬ 
dustries and shippers, are treated im¬ 
partially and without discrimination, ' 
and complaint can be made either to 
the dock or belt railroad boards for 
relief. 

Before New Orleans owned and 
operated the belt railroad, cars were 
moved to suit the convenience of 
the railroads, and shippers were 
treated with more or less indifference, 
and their charges were considerably 
higher. 

Assuming that some persons or 
corporations obtained control of port 
facilities of Seattle, under lease or 
some other contract, and they offer 
to make the charges 'less than if 
Seattle owned and operated them, 

I would still favor operation by 
Seattle. There are some things that 
a city should never part with, and 
among them are the .water works 
system and port facilities. It seems 
to me unnatural for a few to own 
and operate these systems, that 
should by right be owned and operat¬ 
ed by the people. I am confident 
that Seattle can make the lowest 
rates and continue to reduce them 
form time to time as commerce in¬ 
creases. By owning and operating 
there will be less chance of losing 
them and business will be attracted 
and discrimination against the port 
prevented. 

With my experience, extending 
over many years, and with the inter¬ 
est of Seattle in mind, and not 
wanting her to lose her birthright and 
greatest asset, the waterfront termi¬ 
nals, I most earnestly advise you not 
for any consideration whatsoever, to 
lease the docks, warehouses and 
belt railroad, now in contemplation, 
and for which the people of Seattle 
have voted a bond issue. 

I assume that the bonds voted by 
the people of Seattle for port termi¬ 
nal improvements are secured by a 
tax. If such is the case, and more 
money is required for harbor improve¬ 

—15 


ments and an additional tax is not 
desirable, more funds can be secured 
by pledging the revenues from the 
docks, warehouses and belt railroad. 

The docks of New Orleans were 
built by sale of bonds against the 
revenues of the docks. The public 
belt railroad expects to sell some 
bonds shortly, the payment of the 
same to be secured by the pledge 
of all revenues of the public belt rail¬ 
road. 

The control, administration, man¬ 
agement and supervision of the con¬ 
struction, maintenance, operation and 
development of the docks, warehouses 
and railroad terminals should be in 
the Port Commission for the use and 
benefit of the people of Seattle, and 
should remain the sole property of 
the people of Seattle at all times and 
under all circumstances, and should 
in no way or manner ever be hy¬ 
pothecated or alienated. The title 
and use to all that may be established 
now or hereafter, should be, and 
should forever be, in the people of 
the City of Seattle. 

With best wishes for the greatest 
success of the Port Commission of 
Seattle in their exclusive operation 
of the docks, warehouses and rail¬ 
road terminals, that should be owned 
exclusively by the City of Seattle. 

Yours very truly, 
(Signed) WM. BLOOMFIELD, 
(Member Public Belt R. Com. 


It will be observed by a perusal 
of the foregoing, that each of the 
successful ports in the United States 
has gone through the experience of 
private ownership and long time 
lease and that the tendecy of all 
the successful ports, not only of this 
country, but of the world today, is 
for a single control, and that control 
to be PUBLIC. 

Would it be good policy on the part 
of the Port Commission of the City 
of Seattle to enter into a thirty year 
lease with a contractural obligation 
to extend the same to sixty years, 
as is required by the so-called 
“Gentlemen’s Agreement,” that com- 









prises a territory equal to the fol¬ 
lowing described lines. 

If the same were projected in the 
public section of the City of Seattle 
it would read as follows: 

Beginning at the intersection of 
King St. and Occidental Ave.; thence 


northerly along the west line of R. 
R. Ave. and R. R. Ave. produced to 
Stewart St.; thence easterly along 
Stewart St. to Eighth Ave.; thence 
southerly along Eighth Ave. and 
Eighth Ave. produced to Charles St. 
and Eleventh Ave. So.; thence 
westerly to point of beginning. 




Press of the Duwamish Valley News, Seattle. 














■ 

[ 

. 

* 

- 

• 1 .. • 

. 

•£ ‘ - ‘ 




■ 



















. 

. 

11 

' 


/ 




. . 

. ■ . 

■ 


















. 

. 

. 

‘ 

. 

. . 

; 

" V I > <r 


























* 












































- 








































If 





































. 














* 






’ * 

























































































♦ 

























r 


* 

















































































































LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





0 027 133 161 7 
















































































' 

























• * 


' 








* 















































































/ 








m ■ ■ . 

• • , 





































V . • 










* 


















■ 








, 



























































. 














